Author: Super User

I’m not a particular admirer of President Bush, but the leading feminist blog www.feministing.com took a cheap shot at Bush yesterday. It’s one thing to criticize Bush’s policies on the war in Iraq, or immigration, or his head-in-the-sand approach to climate change, but to criticize Bush as a father–particularly in this manner–seems rather low rent.

In People magazine’s end-of-the-year review with George Bush, there is the following exchange:

Q: Tell us about your future son-in-law, Henry Hager. Did he do right and ask for Jenna”s hand?

The President: “He kind of sidled up to me and said, ‘Can I come and see you?” We were sitting outside the presidential cabin here, and he professed his love for Jenna and said, would I mind if he married her? And I said, ‘Got a deal.” [Laughter] And I”m of the school, once you make the sale, move on. But he had some other points he wanted [to make]. He wanted to talk about how he would be financially responsible.’

In the blog post titled Sexist Quote of the Year, By Yours Truly, Vanessa of www.feministing.com writes:

“How lovely. Nothing like your traditional daughter-for-sale language from the leader of our great nation to get me all warm and fuzzy this holiday season. And shame on the magazine (not like we should expect much from them) to say that ‘asking for a daughter’s hand’ is the ‘right’ thing to do. This isn’t the fucking ’50s, People.”

So a warm, humorous moment where the president relates his future son-in-law’s awkward but sincere attempts to do the right thing, to respect his future in-laws, and to respect his future wife, is, in reality, yet another example of our terrible patriarchy and the way fathers allegedly treat their daughters as property for sale. Bush isn’t a proud dad, he’s an “owner” who just completed a sale.

Whatever men do, it’s always wrong.

In a culture where fathers too often hesitate to parent properly because they’re afraid of being criticized, or of hurting their children’s tender feelings by disciplining them, it’s refreshing to see a father behave a bit like a father. The story is below.

[For a good example of masculine parenting, see my blog post We Need More Fathers Like This (Video Available).]

Dad buys his son a hard to get video game for Christmas and gives it to him early. When he catches him smoking pot, he sells the $90 video game on ebay as a punishment and gets $9000 for it!

MONTREAL (AFP) – After catching his 15-year-old smoking pot, a father sold the hard-to-get “Guitar Hero III” video game he bought his son for 90 dollars for Christmas at an online auction, fetching 9,000 dollars.

The sale took place after the father spent two weeks searching for the video game for the Nintendo Wii gameboard.

“So I was so relieved in that I had finally got the Holy Grail of Christmas presents pretty much just in the nick of time. I couldn’t wait to spread the jubilance to my son,” the father wrote on the eBay website.

“Then, yesterday, I came home from work early and what do I find? My innocent little boy smoking pot in the back yard with two of his delinquent friends.”

The man, a school teacher, who kept his identity private, said he sold the coveted video game to punish his son and discourage him from smoking dope.

The sale was a boon for the family’s bank account, since the game the father purchased for 90 dollars (US) was finally sold to an Australian who plunked down 9,100 dollars for it.

The naughty son, however, will not go without a present on Christmas.

“I am still considering getting him a game for his Nintendo. Maybe something like Barbie as the Island Princess or Dancing with the Stars … I know he will just love them,” the father said, tongue-in-cheek.

Dr. Helen has a new article out called “Should Alimony Die a Quick Death?” (Pajamas Media, 12/19/07). Dr. Helen writes:

“Personally, I have a hard time justifying long term alimony payments to men or women in today”s society. Years ago, when one spouse (typically women) was expected to stay home with the kids, tend the house and generally had no training or as many opportunities to make a living as women do today, I would say that alimony might have been more fair.

“However, in today”s world, in which women have fought for the right to equality, alimony seems more like a kid getting an allowance from daddy and I believe it should be abolished altogether except for extremely dire circumstances where a spouse is older, cannot work at all, and for only a short term period. No man or woman should be held to being a slave to an ex-spouse after a marriage ends.”

The concept of “alimony as slavery” is common in the men’s and fathers’ movements, and it is valid, but only to a point. Dr. Helen makes some good points above, but she goes further than I would. I am not against the concept of alimony, I am against the abuse of it.

When alimony is part of a “don’t get mad, get everything” type of post-divorce fleecing, I am opposed. When it is done out of vindictiveness, as in the divorce attorneys’ anti-male ad pictured, I am opposed. When it is done because the law demands that a divorced man support his ex-wife at the standard of living to which she is accustomed, I am opposed, because I believe that this is an unfair and unrealistic burden.

That being said, however, I believe there are situations where alimony is called for. Let’s say that Bob and Jane got married in 1995, and had three children. The couple realized that it is very difficult for the children and for the family in general if both parents have demanding, go-all-out careers. In light of this, they decide that one of them will stay home, or will work part-time, or will do a job that is not as demanding or gives flexible time, so that someone is there for the children.

In the majority of cases, this will be the woman instead of the man, but the gender is irrelevant. Over the subsequent period, Bob works 50 hour weeks and now has a career which earns him $120,000 a year. Jane works 30 hours a week and is the primary caregiver for the children, and earns $25,000 a year.

Now it is 2008 and Bob and Jane are divorcing. (I will leave aside for the moment why they are getting divorced, issues surrounding no-fault divorce, etc.). I believe that both Bob and Jane, absent a finding of parental unfitness, should have shared parenting and a relatively equal timeshare with their children.

I also think it is entirely appropriate for Bob to pay Jane both child support and alimony. Not an extortionate amount, not an amount designed to punish him, not an attempt to preserve her living standard while impoverishing him, but a reasonable amount to take into consideration Bob’s vastly greater earning capacity. This vastly greater earning capacity did not come about because Jane is lazy, or because Jane lacks talent. It came about because her contributions to the household were different than Bob’s.

Dr. Helen’s full article can be seen here.

First an excerpt from the article, and then a few thoughts:

Rape claim was cover for cheating on husband, charges allege
Minneapolis Star Tribune
12/18/07

A St. Paul psychologist who claimed she was raped by a patient in her office in October 2006 has instead been charged with falsely reporting a crime.

Authorities say that Jill Ajao, 41, made the rape claim to conceal an extramarital affair and to “protect herself and her family.” The false report prompted a detailed police investigation, the release of a suspect sketch and surveillance photo and the sifting through of hundreds of tips, according to the criminal complaint filed last week.

Police spokesman Tom Walsh said Tuesday that it was unusual for his department to seek the charges against a woman who claimed to be a victim and police did so only after a thorough investigation.

“It’s extremely rare. It’s rare because we don’t want victims not to report” a crime, he said. “But it’s very clear that this young woman was not sexually assaulted. And given the fear that she created in our community, we felt that this action was necessary.”

Falsely reporting a crime is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine…

“A factor in seeking charges, Walsh said, was that the man she said raped her had been subjected to public attention when his photo was shown in the media to help police solve an alleged rape”…

A few thoughts:

1) It is interesting that the police spokesman said that it is unusual for his department to charge women who have made false rape reports. For one, he does not deny that false claims happen, or try to say they are rare. Also, he sounds almost apologetic about charging the woman. Here the woman did great harm to an innocent man, and at worst she may get a whopping 90 days in jail, yet the police seem almost embarrassed to be bringing charges.

2) In these types of cases usually everybody ignores another factor– this man was publicly identified as a rapist on the loose, and could easily have been the target of vigilante action.

3) The police claim that they do not want to prosecute false accusers because it will make genuine rape victims hesitant to come forward. I’ve never seen much validity to this argument. I can’t imagine that a woman who came forward with a credible rape accusation would ever be prosecuted for it. Perhaps one of the feminists who read this blog knows of such a case–if so, please feel free to bring it to my attention.

It seems to me that by prosecuting false accusers we will not reduce the number of genuine victims reporting rape but instead reduce the number of false accusers.

4) I try hard to be fair to feminists and feminist organizations, but I find their silence over false rape accusations to be increasingly infuriating. “Silence” is actually a kind way of putting it, since they usually deny that false accusations are a problem. (To learn more about the prevalence of false accusations of rape, see my recent column U. of Maryland right to deny protesters a forum to publicly name alleged rapists, Baltimore Sun, 10/15/07).

I wish that in reading these types of articles, which readers send to me continuously, that once, just once, I would read something like this:

“Jane Doe, executive director of the local chapter of the National Organization for Women, expressed her displeasure with Ajao. Doe explains:

“‘What Ajao did is very harmful. It is terrible to falsely accuse a man of a serious crime like rape. It hurts him, and it also hurts all women who are victims of sexual assault, because it undermines the credibility of their claims. We want rapists in jail. We do not want innocent men victimized.'”

Is that too much to ask?

The full story, with a timeline of the case, can be seen here.

Thanks to Justin, a reader, for sending me the article.

The media generally has a rule when covering domestic violence cases–if it’s domestic violence, and it’s committed by a woman against a man, it’s not domestic violence.

Happily, Tim, a reader, recently sent me an exception, at least a little bit–the story mentions “domestic violence” at the end, which is nice.

Police Say Woman Shot At Husband, Hit TV
Husband Calls 911 From Basement
WISN.com
12/18/07

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. — A Michigan woman, accused by police of trying to shoot her husband in the head and missing, hitting the plasma TV instead, could face prison time.

Washington Township resident Cheryl Grucz, 61, was arraigned on charges ranging from assault with intent to do bodily harm, which carries a 10-year sentence, to possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, which carries a two-year sentence. She also was charged with a misdemeanor because the firearm did not pass safety inspection, WDIV-TV in Detroit reported.

Her frantic husband locked himself in a room in the basement of their home and called 911 after she fired the shot, police said.

“My wife’s got a gun, and she’s shooting at me,” said her husband, who is 65.

A Romeo District Court judge set a bond of $50,000 or 10 percent, with conditions.

The court also ordered Grucz to enroll in a domestic violence program.

Grucz’s preliminary hearing is scheduled for Jan. 15.

[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]

A heroic little girl kept her head and saved her father’s life after he had a heart attack during a trip in the woods. The little girl saved him by driving 10 miles to get help. According to one news report:

“Timothy Webber and his daughter Cheyanne were spending an evening at a hunt club in a remote part of town, far from the sound of passing cars or even cell phone service. Shortly after leaving for home, things went wrong.

“‘When we got ready to leave I started having chest pains,’ said Webber.

“He was having a heart attack. That’s when Cheyanne took control of the car and drove nearly 10 miles to cell phone range.

“‘I steered and I mostly pushed the gas and the brake,’ recalls the young girl.

“On her dad’s lap, Cheyanne drove their Ford pickup truck down some windy, narrow roads at looking for a place to pull over and call for help.

“‘And then I called Mom ’cause I found that I had service on the phone and then she said she was on her way to come pick us up,’ Cheyanne added.

“Her mother, Jessie Webber, said ‘I knew something was wrong. I didn’t know what exactly was wrong until I got up there and he wasn’t responding.’

“Jessie drove Timothy to the hospital where doctors found his major artery to be 90 percent blocked.

“‘I probably would have hurt myself if Cheyanne wouldn’t have been with me and if she wouldn’t have known how to drive the truck, both of us probably would have been hurt,’ Timothy said.

“Cheyanne said her dad taught her how to drive a tractor and once drove a car on private property, something she enjoys doing, but as for driving on main roads again, she plans to wait until she’s 16.”

To watch the video of Cheyanne, her dad, and her family, click here.

Probation. Yup, probation. It makes poor Mary Winkler’s 67 day jail stint for shooting her husband in the back as he slept seem positively cruel…

10 Years Probation For Traci Rhode
December 11, 2007
KGBT TV

She was found guilty of murder but received no jail time.

On Thursday, several people reacted negatively to 37 year old Traci Rhode’s 10-year probation punishment.

Rhode (pictured) was convicted of First-Degree Murder on Monday and after two days of deliberation, the jury handed down what police and the prosecution team described as a “very” disappointing sentence.

“No amount of jail time assessed will bring back Mr. Rhode,” said Brownsville Police Chief Carlos Garcia. “She’s going to have to live her life knowing she was convicted of murder.”

Cameron County Assistant District Attorney, Chuck Mattingly held a press conference shortly after the sentence.

“(We) have serious concerns about the message that this sends to our community when a person found guilty of first degree, pre-meditated murder walks out of the courthouse after killing her husband,” he said.

Mattingly added he believes the jury took long establishing a punishment because Rhode’s two young sons took the stand and that might have affected their outlook on the case.

The full article can be seen here. Thanks to Bruce, a reader, for sending it.

As we continue our nationwide contest for “most ridiculous family law bill in the country,’ I am pleased to present the worst entry from Massachusetts. The second, third and fourth-worst entries were presented over the previous week. So far, I have few entries from other states. Just as with the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics, New England may be running away with the competition. I invite your nominations from all states for winner of this contest. The winner will be chosen according to secret criteria that are 100 percent subjective. (To enter the contest, your email must include the text of the bill, or a link to the text. The bill must be current. Please indicate whether I can use your name as the submitter.) I now offer the winner and champion in Massachusetts:

 

Massachusetts Doozy Number One: “Babies in Prison’   Massachusetts HB 104 When an incarcerated woman delivers a baby, HB 104 provides that “…every effort shall be made to keep infants of twelve months or less born to incarcerated mothers with their mothers.’  (emphasis added) (The word “shall’ is important because in law, it means that the thing must be done, without room for discretion.) But suppose there is a perfectly good Dad?  This bill would have the baby stay with Mom in prison even if there is a perfectly good Dad on the outside ! Or suppose Mom is in prison for domestic violence or other violent acts, or child abuse, or is psychologically unbalanced, or is on drugs? And what happens after twelve months? Is baby suddenly expelled from prison into the care of someone he/she has hardly ever seen before? The hazards of prison are very real. Violence. Drug use. Infectious diseases. Sensory deprivation. Lack of pediatric medical care. There are strong medical benefits to nursing, but these benefits max out after a month or so. At that point, even with a great mother, baby needs to get out of the big house if there is a competent caretaker outside, such as Dad. Maybe even before. In summary, this bill is dreadful for babies. And it demonstrates how ready our society is to simply throw away what Dads have to offer children.

As we continue our nationwide contest for “most ridiculous family law bill in the country,’ I am pleased to present the second-worst entry from Massachusetts. The fourth- and third-worst entries were presented last week.

I invite your nominations from all states for winner of this contest. The winner will be chosen according to secret criteria that are 100 percent subjective.

(To enter the contest, your email must include the text of the bill, or a link to the text. The bill must be current. Please indicate whether I can use your name as the submitter.)

I now offer:

Massachusetts Doozy Number Two:

“Unwanted Baby Deposit Box’     Massachusetts HB 92

This bill expands the already-passed “Safe Havens Law.’ A better name would be “The Baby Abandonment Law.’ This law allows a person to drop off a baby less than 7 days of age at a hospital, police station or fire station  —  no questions asked. Under HB 92, abandonment sites would be increased to include any “emergency respondent’ to a 911 call. That”s neat – a baby pick-up service.

Similar laws now exist in 48 states, so a lot of people think they are a good idea. The purpose is to provide an alternative for desperate young women who might otherwise leave their unwanted baby in a dumpster in January. So maybe this is a good idea  — but not judging by the number of abandoned babies, since this has been going up, not down, during the last ten years as these laws have been passed (Texas was first, in 1999).

But that”s not all. The publicity in most states emphasizes that the process is totally anonymous. Illinois is typical. Their website says, “… you can walk away with no questions asked…. The baby will be cared for and placed in a loving home for adoption. No attempt whatsoever will be made to contact you. No crime will have been committed. This is a TRULY safe process.’

Whatever happened to parental responsibility  — you know  — that concept that requires you to pay child support even if you never get to see the child? Does it apply only to men?

Which brings to mind the following thought: What if someone proposed a law that said any dad who did not want to pay child support could just drop the baby off?  I can just imagine testimony for such a bill at a legislative hearing: “Yes, Mr. Chairman, we need this bill so that fathers who don”t want to pay child support won”t throw the baby in a dumpster. After all, some of them are desperate, you know.’

So think about these scenarios:

a) Unmarried mom drops off baby anonymously without informing dad, who is a fit parent and eager to raise the child. So much for fathers” rights. So much for baby”s rights to know his parents, to be raised by a biological parent, to remain out of the foster care and adoption system, and to know his medical history (increasingly important in these days of genetic medicine.)

b) Married mom drops off the baby anonymously without informing dad, who is a fit parent and eager to raise the child, and disappears.

c) Dad drops off the baby anonymously without informing mom, then disappears, thus dispensing with the need to pay child support. (Somehow I don”t think the authors of this bill thought of this one.)